Re: Sportfishing Industry Asks EPA to Dismiss Petition to Ban Lead in Tackle

Personally I have no problem using Tungsten or other substitutes (when I need weight) and think getting away from lead in the long run is a good idea. I also think steel shot when hunting should be mandatory everywhere, not just on Federal Property.

Re: Sportfishing Industry Asks EPA to Dismiss Petition to Ban Lead in Tackle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Editor

What do you think about this topic? Should lead be banned and other materials be found instead? In the UK we now use Tungsten amongst others for example.

I have seen this topic URGENTLY posted on boards like it is an attack on fishermen. People complaining about the cost that it will bring.

What about cost to farmers that get less water due to the needs of salmon and steelhead? My point is not that farmers should get all the water they want, their financial end result being optimal over the wildlife. In fact I am sickened how a decent amount of water from the delta that is threatening fish with extinction only goes to multimillion dollar corporations WHO GET THE WATER AT A DISCOUNT (FROM THE TAXPAYERS) THEN RESELL IT TO THE TAXPAYER AT A GOOD PROFIT!!

Looking at other boards where this topic is posted as a urgent notice to fisherman to attack it, the exact harm of lead in our waters is never mentioned. I never see a post saying "look, the science <source> says that lead does not pose a danger", only "it is going to increase our costs X%."

Re: Sportfishing Industry Asks EPA to Dismiss Petition to Ban Lead in Tackle

Quote:

Originally Posted by oregonsteel

I have seen this topic URGENTLY posted on boards like it is an attack on fishermen. People complaining about the cost that it will bring.

What about cost to farmers that get less water due to the needs of salmon and steelhead? My point is not that farmers should get all the water they want, their financial end result being optimal over the wildlife. In fact I am sickened how a decent amount of water from the delta that is threatening fish with extinction only goes to multimillion dollar corporations WHO GET THE WATER AT A DISCOUNT (FROM THE TAXPAYERS) THEN RESELL IT TO THE TAXPAYER AT A GOOD PROFIT!!

Looking at other boards where this topic is posted as a urgent notice to fisherman to attack it, the exact harm of lead in our waters is never mentioned. I never see a post saying "look, the science <source> says that lead does not pose a danger", only "it is going to increase our costs X%."

Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

The salmon and steelhead were there long before the farmers.

I'm not sure where you're going with the big $$$$ corporations getting water and selling it back to taxpayers. That went way over my head.

I've seen the same subject on other boards and there is quite a lot of questions and only a few mention the $$$$ cost to the fisher, the retailer and the manufacturer. I doubt if there are many companies today that really rely on just selling lead jigs, split shot etc. You have to diversify to suceed in todays world.
There is a lot of questions regarding where IS the scientific data.
So here it is again. WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC DATA AS TO THE DAMAGE THAT LEAD DOES TO WILDLIFE (and I don't mean peta's fabricated stories)

Re: Sportfishing Industry Asks EPA to Dismiss Petition to Ban Lead in Tackle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojo

WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC DATA AS TO THE DAMAGE THAT LEAD DOES TO WILDLIFE (and I don't mean peta's fabricated stories)

This.

I have a very hard time believing anything the environuts say. They have told so many half truths and exaggerations to the detriment of Human Beings that everything they say just has the ring of untrue to me.

I love Nature, I want clean water and air, beautiful scenery, plus I don't want to die from some kind of awful cancer, BUT I need real proof, not just stories.

Re: Sportfishing Industry Asks EPA to Dismiss Petition to Ban Lead in Tackle

Quote:

Originally Posted by fysh'

Personally I have no problem using Tungsten or other substitutes (when I need weight) and think getting away from lead in the long run is a good idea. I also think steel shot when hunting should be mandatory everywhere, not just on Federal Property.

Just my .02 worth.

Steel or other non-lead shots are a requirement throughout the U.S. for hunting waterfowl, not just on federal land. Here in CA, its also a requirement for hunting anything in the "Condor Zone".

I dont mind going to the use of non-lead weights. It might cost a little more but the rise in price wont be much. My biggest problem with it is that I havent seen anything that convinces me the enviro's are right. With waterfowl refuges, it was pretty well proven that the lead shot was causing harm to the bird populations. A lot of ducks are dabblers (tip upside down to feed off the bottom), hence they would pick up lead pellets when they would feed. The difference being the amount of lead in a heavily hunted waterway versus a heavily fished water way. Fisherman would leave lead weights numbering maybe in the hundreds over a year. Hunters on the other hand would leave lead shot numbering in the millions.